Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
. they will be taking a hit. salaries in congress are safe, but they tell us none of this is supposed to happen. >> it was never meant to become implemented policy. >> and now they face a simple choice. are they willing to compromise to protect vital investments and all the jobs that depend on them? or would they rather put hundreds of thousands of jobs and our entire economy at risk just to protect a few special interest tax loopholes that benefit only the wealthiest and biggest corporations? >> of sequestration was never meant to be implemented, then why was it implemented? >> the president is the one guy who can step above it and he's just playing politics. >> are we having fun yet? >> there is a sense of sleepwalking as we head toward the first of march and i think republicans are making it a serious political mistake to be on the subject of the issue in underestimating how much of their buying to be blamed for what happens. >> do you think the armageddon scenario is being overplayed? >> it is the biggest since the mayan calendar. it's ridiculous. here we are spending $3 trillion per year f
will create blight for these people. >> those other people who do the jobs that none of us want to do. i think the odds are that he will not get it and he will not fight for it that hard. the last person who fought for a minimum-wage increase was ted kennedy and he actually got it. >> who will be the time kennedy in the senate is an interesting question, too. >> if you cannot pay someone $9 an hour, you probably should not be a business. >> i agree with him -- >> you talk about the economy as if it is a moral and estimate. even if i agree with you, it does not change the fact that it will hurt young people and immigrants, a lot of whom are low-skilled, you are guaranteeing them the low end of the scale and will hurt the chances of young, less skilled people getting jobs. it is an economic fact. it may not be just, but it is true. >> is what i am asking -- where is the evidence of that having happened -- >> why don't you make it $15? >> but you are making the argument -- >> if you are saying it has no effect on employment -- >> obviously it has an effect! the question is, are you going to ask p
that it is okay to kick this down the road. >> he actually used those words. >> terrible idea. it courts all kinds of disasters. sounded -- the interest rate spikes. it takes a long time to fix these problems. sequestration is a crude, ugly tool, but if it had the effect of making people get serious about entitlement reform, it would not be so bad. >> colby, what do you think? >> going back to charles' column, he says that it is the first time since the election the president obama has been on the defense. i don't think that is true. i agree with mark on this, that republicans will bear the brunt of this initially because they are seen as the obstructionists. looking at it in sheer political terms, this as global implications for the u.s. economy tanking as a result of this. >> you think the american people are getting fed up with this? this has been going on for years. >> and worse and worse, so that there is no planning. you have a five-year transportation bill, then a two-year transportation bill, then and nothing transportation bill. >> what does it take to make the government do the right thi
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3